Look, Pareto inefficiency requires a violation of the laws of economics. That’s what it means. It is an economic agent forgoing a benefit for no reason—not “no reason” according to the agent, but no reason according to the universe. You are positing explanations for why the Pareto improvement doesn’t happen, so it’s not inefficiency. It doesn’t matter if the reason seems small and trivial to you. The universe doesn’t run things by you before it makes them happen.
If you don’t have economic agents, you’re not talking about an economic system. There is no inefficiency or efficiency there. If you want to say that the AI stopped being an agent for a second, go for it. It doesn’t affect my argument.
Yes, whatever is, is efficient. It isn’t very predictive because it predicts everything that exists in the universe. Just like the laws of physics. But efficiency does predict that you won’t find anything in the universe that violates the laws of economics. This makes a definitive prediction that there will always be an explanation for an economic agent forgoing a benefit. It does not predict that Alejandro1 will find that explanation sufficiently significant.
Look, Pareto inefficiency requires a violation of the laws of economics. That’s what it means. It is an economic agent forgoing a benefit for no reason—not “no reason” according to the agent, but no reason according to the universe. You are positing explanations for why the Pareto improvement doesn’t happen, so it’s not inefficiency. It doesn’t matter if the reason seems small and trivial to you. The universe doesn’t run things by you before it makes them happen.
If you don’t have economic agents, you’re not talking about an economic system. There is no inefficiency or efficiency there. If you want to say that the AI stopped being an agent for a second, go for it. It doesn’t affect my argument.
Yes, whatever is, is efficient. It isn’t very predictive because it predicts everything that exists in the universe. Just like the laws of physics. But efficiency does predict that you won’t find anything in the universe that violates the laws of economics. This makes a definitive prediction that there will always be an explanation for an economic agent forgoing a benefit. It does not predict that Alejandro1 will find that explanation sufficiently significant.